Saturday, October 10, 2015

The Times is backing off it's claims that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem - or if there was, it's located somewhere else than the Temple Mount.

The “explosive historical question that cuts to the essence of competing claims” is the false assertion by some Arabs that there never was a temple on Temple Mount, not whether the contours of the temple(s) lay a few meters one way or the other. The Times ran a reprehensible piece, the intent of which was to mainstream temple denialism, and then, when protests arose, tried to pretend that their article was something else entirely.

This is, of course, part of the Islamic attempt to deny that Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews. In this the anti-Semitic Jew-haters at the NY Slimes are aiding and abetting the Islamofascists.

On the other hand, the Muslim claims for it's historical ties to the Temple Mount are actually bogus.

There is a certain irony here: while there is no doubt about the historical fact that the ancient Jewish temples stood on Temple Mount, it is certainly open to debate whether the Muslims’ claim to Temple Mount is historically valid. The location is supposedly sacred to Islam because it is the spot from which Mohammed ascended into heaven. I have been to the Dome of the Rock and have seen the small indentation in the rock, which allegedly was created by Mohammed’s heel as he ascended. Personally, I don’t believe it.

In fact, there is zero evidence that Mohammed was ever in Jerusalem at all. If the Times wants to do an article on the questionable validity of historical claims to Temple Mount, there is an obvious candidate. But it is not the one that the Times wants to pursue.